In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury verdict of dependency or neglect, we are governed by the well-settled rule of appellate procedure: The record is viewed in the light most favorable to the party successful in the trial court, and every inference fairly deducible from the evidence is drawn in favor of the judgment. Beardshear v. Beardshear, 163 Colo. 333, 432 P.2d 235 (1967); Cottingham v. Star Bus Line, 152 Colo. 188, 381 P.2d 25 (1963). Expert testimony presented at trial by Dr. Lauer, a psychiatrist, established that the mother, L.A.R., is suffering from long-standing, chronic schizophrenia, and that based on his observations of L.A.R., along with his knowledge of schizophrenia, L.A.R. is incapable of appropriate empathy or understanding of others, such that a child would be in severe jeopardy in such an environment.
[1] This Court has uniformly held, and we do not retreat from our determination, that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in a probate proceeding. Colo. Const. art. II, § 23. Beardshear v. Beardshear, 163 Colo. 333, 432 P.2d 235 (1967) Zackheim v. Zackheim, 75 Colo. 161, 225 P. 268 (1924); Miller v. O'Brien, 75 Colo. 117, 223 P. 1088 (1924). [2,3] Since the appellant's right to a jury trial does not arise out of the constitution, it must be a creature of statute or rule.
We also recognize that the personal representative has a significant responsibility to defend and bring lawsuits which in his view are necessary. See Beardshear v. Beardshear, 163 Colo. 333, 432 P.2d 235 (1967). We conclude, however, that here the trial court failed to apply a proper legal standard to review past and prospective expenditures under § 15-15-107, and failed to require a more detailed explanation and justification from the personal representative as to his past and future expenses.
Conflicting evidence was presented here concerning the manner in which the collision occurred. Viewing the evidence most favorably to the prevailing party, as we must, Beardshear v. Beardshear, 163 Colo. 333, 432 P.2d 235; McQueen v. Robbins, 28 Colo.App. 436, 476 P.2d 57, it appears that both vehicles entered the intersection on a yellow light. Westbound Mrs. Saborsky commenced a slow left turn immediately in front of Mrs. Flanigan's eastbound vehicle.
The question then becomes one of determining whether the court's refusal to admit evidence of decedent's mental condition prior to the January 4, 1960, hearing, unduly prejudiced plaintiff's efforts to prove decedent's disability as of the date of recording the deed. It has previously been held in Colorado, in the context of determining competency to make a will, that prior adjudications as to competency are not to be considered conclusive in subsequent hearings, but rather are to be considered as evidentiary only. Beardshear v. Beardshear, 163 Colo. 333, 432 P.2d 235; Martin v. Reid, 106 Colo. 69, 101 P.2d 25. We adopt the above rule with regard to the type of hearing before us.